All round lens needed for 400D?

boYce

boYce

boYce

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
625
Location
Nottingham
Hi everyone im after a bit of lens and camera advice :D
i've just some back from an amazing holiday in Uganda. I saw gorillas, chips, monkeys, lions, elephant and more in the wild. i've also come back with massive camera envy as the photos from my brother 350D are so much better than my little sony, 4mp, x3 zoom, so, having wanted to for a while i've decided to make the jump to dSLR.
The general advice seems to be stick with the nikon or canon, and the canon 400D and nikon 40D are good enough (and cheap enough) for what i need. I use the 40D at work and find it a little small and plasticy and the bottom left corner of the 400D a little pointy but out of the 2 the 400D seems better, so i'll go with that. Also brother has canon.

The camera will be used for a range of things from travel/backpack/holiday photos to general days out to some design/product shorts for uni, so animals, monuments, landscapes, people and products. In terms of lenses im looking for an all rounder to get me going, mainly cause in most of those situations im not going to want to change lens. So something starting at either 18 or 28 and going up to 200 or 300.

(i'm thinking i will pick up an wide angle, BIG aperture lens, for low light shots at a later date)

tell me if, and when im wrong but something to do with the camera having a x1.6 correction means you really need 18mm over 28 as a starter?
And seeing as there are little (or none?) 18 - 300 its going to be an 18-200.
seeing as canon dont make 18-200 that leaves me with sigma or tamron. (man in the shop said tamron was better)

So there is;
Sigman 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC
Sigman 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS
Tamron AF18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF)
Tamron AF18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical (IF)
or any other people could suggest


im i right about needing to go down to 18mm?
is an F3.5 low enough for an all round lens?
which is better tamron or sigman?
which of those lenses would you recommend?
does the 400D seem like the right choice?

Thanks, and i look forward to posting some pics soon!
 
generally you find with high zoom lenses that the IQ suffers. I would probably suggest (if bugdet allows) going for 2 lenses of higher quality.
Personally i dont know of any canon fit lens that is a good all rounder but then i hav never asked the question.
 
From what I've read, a lens that covers that sort of range will suffer as 33L says.

I went for a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 as a main lens as it seemed to get a pretty good write up and a cheap Tamron 70-300 as I don't often need it, I could not justify spending more at this point.

The lens I wanted, one that does it all well and at a reasonable price, does not exist as far as I could see anyway.
 
Every photographer has their opinion for the ideal "walkabout" lens. I favour a Sigma DC 17-70mm f2.8 on my Canon 30D.

edit: sorry I didnt see that you wanted to go up to 200-300 mm!
 
I really wouldnt bother with any of those. f6.3 is going to be fairly useless, and that's what they will all be over 100mm or so (i'm guessing).

If you know you want a telephoto, get a telephoto. The Sigma/Tamron 70-300mm's are not that expensive, and combined with the kit lens on either camera you'll have all the ranges covered, with probably better IQ.
 
Yep, not for Canon, but the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens is apparently acceptable good, all the other makes aren't up to scratch.

I suggest 2 lenses. Something 18-50 or 18-70, plus a 70-300mm.

Or if you want a good landscape lens the Sigma 10-20mm + a 50mm f/1.8 + a 70-300mm would be real nice.
 
as above, personally id get 2 lenses. a short walkaround then a longer zoom.

i opted for sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and sigma 70-200mm f2.8. both have outstanding IQ.

man in the shop said tamron was better
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
IQ ? What is IQ? Have I been living under a rock for a while? Is it image quality?

Have you considered the canon EFS lens. I believe they do an IS EFS fit lens that is around 17-85 ?
 
If you absolutely have to go with one lens then the only option worth considering is the Canon 28-300mm F3.5 - 5.6 L IS (£1200)
Image quality will clearly not be as good as covering the range with 2+ lenses but it will certainly be much better than that from the above mention Tamron and Sigma lenses.

The other and better option is to go for two lenses :
Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (£250)
Canon 70-300mm IS (£340)
 
D.P. said:
Yep, not for Canon, but the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens is apparently acceptable good, all the other makes aren't up to scratch.

I suggest 2 lenses. Something 18-50 or 18-70, plus a 70-300mm.

Or if you want a good landscape lens the Sigma 10-20mm + a 50mm f/1.8 + a 70-300mm would be real nice.
Click to expand...
Yup. None of the super-zooms, for want of a better term, have particularly good image quality and you're sacrificing f stops for the ease of only having one lens. You're trying to turn a dSLR, which purposefully has changeable lenses, into a point and shoot, which has one that does everything.

Again, D.P. has given some good advice with the lenses too. The 10-20 with a 50mm and a 70-300 would be a great combo that covers pretty much every situation. Depending on your budget, the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro is alright, but the Canon 70-300 IS is good if you can stretch to it.
 
What about the new Canon 55-250mm IS paired something like the 50mm f1.8 and Sigma 10-20?

The IS will be useful when you're shooting in lower light, not as good as having an F2.8 lens but a hell of a lot cheaper.

Total cost would be circa £450 for the lenses.
 
Last edited:
boYce said:
seeing as canon dont make 18-200 that leaves me with sigma or tamron. (man in the shop said tamron was better)
Click to expand...
if you can afford the little extra then the Tamron 18-250mm is markedly better than the Tamron 18-200mm.

D.P. said:
Yep, not for Canon, but the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens is apparently acceptable good, all the other makes aren't up to scratch.
Click to expand...
The Tamron 18-250mm is surprisingly good given the focal range, it's really quite sharp.
The Sony version based on the design is even better (focuses faster due to different gearing & has different coatings) but of course that's in MAF/Sony Alpha mount only.
 
Last edited:
Raikiri said:
What about the new Canon 55-250mm IS paired something like the 50mm f1.8 and Sigma 10-20?
Click to expand...

I just got the 55-250mm and 10-20mm and i have to say, the 55-250mm surprised me quite a lot. The image stabilisation works a treat, and at full 250mm its possible to get clear handheld shots at as little as 1/80, although 1/125 is a bit better as a minimum amount. Build quality is pretty good and whilst still being plastic, it feels solid and reliable unlike the wobbly lightweight kit lens that comes with the 400d.

Before i bought it i was comparing the images with the sigma 70-300 APO and at the same settings and both at full focal distances the canon was much sharper and once images were enlarged to the same size the IS had made a tremendous amount of difference.

The only bad aspect is it can take a while to focus during low light conditions, although a flashguns metering helps tackle that problem. Its still taken some cracking shots of the moon from a handheld position.

I'll try and get some kind of review up tomorrow.
 
Thanks for all the advice guys its interesting to see that most of you would go for 2 lenses to cover the range.

I guess the reason why i was after one all rounder was because i could think of a lots of situations where i would be taking photos that covered the range and wouldnt want to be changing.

in Uganda we were up a boat trip up the Nile, most of the time we were zooming in taking wildlife shots but then there were times when we would want a pic of me, mum and brother so would be using something in the 18-28 range.

I think there are quite a few situation where i would want to flick from zoom (rugby, cars, wildlife, statues) to wide angle, mainly people.

Would most of you changes lenses on the go for photos like this? or put up with the fact that while you on safari your gonna stick to the zoom.

is the quality of the all round lens really that bad?
 
BUFF said:
second body ...
Click to expand...
im looking into a second body for the same reason as i went to kenya and changing lenses on the move caused a lot of dust getting to the sensor.

even when i go for walk and i always change lenses so really thinking it wise to get a second body and keep one for telephoto and one for wide.
 
P&S for family snaps while you shoot wildlife with a good tele
lens. When the action is quiet you can swap lenses and go for the 50mm prime lens for portraits of family...


Yes, it is awkward if you like both wildlife and landscape shots. I have missed lots of shots for these reasons. Luck is the key to having the right lens when the rhino jumps ut from behind a bush. In this sense it makes sense to keep telephoto on most of the time and swap to landscape lenses as and when needed, swapping back to telephoto so you don't miss the wildlife shots. Its a good thing mountains don't move.

A 2nd body of course is the best opiton, price and weigh set aside. A full frame body with landscape lenses, crop body with teles.
 
Tamron AF18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical (IF)

Thats the boy, not so good for indoor work but for outside it gives you the flexability to take a wide landcape one second and then zoom in on that bird in the tree the next. I adore mine, it was fantastic for travelling with as I never needed to change lenses.

Handheld at 18mm
1347196928_454951f3a6.jpg


Handheld at 250mm
1347253368_7c14fc7616.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom